Brooklyn judge blocks Trump admin from ending DACA

In his ruling Tuesday, District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufissaid the administration can "indisputably" end DACA but questioned its legal reasoning for doing so.

A Brooklyn federal judge is blocking the Trump Administration from pulling back the Dreamers immigration program, saying the government did not provide adequate explanations for the abrupt about-face.

The White House has maintained that any agreement on DACA also must incorporate enhanced border security, including funds to build a wall at the U.S. -Mexico border, as well as an end to the visa lottery system and limitations on family-based immigration.

NY state attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who leads a coalition of 17 attorneys general who sued to protect DACA and Dreamers, hailed Garaufis's decision as a "victory".

Garaufis' ruling in favor of Dreamers and a coalition of attorneys general led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is the latest twist in the status of DACA.

Garaufis wrote there wasn't evidence in the record to support the government's argument that officials had chose to end the program out of concern that courts would strike it down, similar to the injunction that blocked the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program. He also stated that the termination of DACA ordered by the President Trump was arbitrary and capricious. "The court concludes that defendants have not done so".

The most recent decision reinforces the case against the elimination of DACA, djio Tumlin, on the eve of the decision that the Supreme Court of the Nation must make this Friday in an appeal that the government made after the January decision.

The administration's March 5th date was meant to force Congress to pass legislation by that time to replace the program in exchange for funding Trump's campaign promise to finish the border wall and increasing immigration control.

"DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend these benefits to this same group of illegal aliens".

"Reliance on this "litigation risk" rationale would have been arbitrary and capricious, in light of defendants' failure to explain their decision or to consider any factors that might have weighed against ending the DACA program", he said.

That acknowledgment that the White House can end the program should really have been the end of the discussion and it nearly certainly will be if this ever reaches the Supreme Court.

The Department of Homeland Security has been accepting renewal applications since Alsup's order came down. As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress.